Promoting research into peer review.
作者信息
Smith R
出版信息
BMJ. 1994 Jul 16;309(6948):143-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6948.143.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Promoting research into peer review.推动同行评审研究。
BMJ. 1994 Jul 16;309(6948):143-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6948.143.
2
There are no schools for medical editors.
S Afr Med J. 2013 Jan 6;103(2):65-6. doi: 10.7196/samj.6618.
3
A labour of love: 'no schools for medical editors'.
S Afr Med J. 2013 Apr;103(4):213. doi: 10.7196/samj.6817.
4
Reflections on the Journal of the Medical Library Association.对《医学图书馆协会杂志》的思考
J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Oct;96(4):285-6. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.002.
5
Medical research and the news media.医学研究与新闻媒体。
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 2;351(23):2436-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe048289.
6
Further developing the profession's research mentality.进一步培养该行业的研究思维。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Oct;96(4):287-9. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.003.
7
Point and click.
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003 Jan-Feb;30(1):11. doi: 10.1188/03.ONF.11.
8
How Publish or Perish Promotes Inaccuracy in Science -- and Journalism.“不发表就出局”如何导致科学及新闻领域出现失实内容。
AMA J Ethics. 2015 Dec 1;17(12):1172-5. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.12.sect1-1512.
9
International Dyslexia Association's official journal 'Annals of dyslexia'.国际诵读困难症协会的官方期刊《诵读困难症年鉴》。
Ann Dyslexia. 2005 Jun;55(1):1-8. doi: 10.1007/s11881-005-0001-z.
10
Avoiding currently unavoidable conflicts of interest in medical publishing by transparent peer review.通过透明的同行评审来避免医学出版中目前不可避免的利益冲突。
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 May;26(5):411-5. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.01.015. Epub 2013 Feb 4.
引用本文的文献
1
[Peer review in scientific journals].[科学期刊中的同行评审]
Aten Primaria. 2001 Apr 15;27(6):432-9. doi: 10.1016/s0212-6567(01)78827-0.
2
Experts and evidence.专家与证据。
Br J Gen Pract. 1996 May;46(406):268-70.
3
Time to redefine authorship.是时候重新定义作者身份了。
BMJ. 1996 Mar 23;312(7033):723. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.723.
4
Promoting research into peer review. Referees should provide references.促进同行评审研究。审稿人应提供参考文献。
BMJ. 1994;309(6953):539.
5
Promoting research into peer review. Identify referees' institutions.促进同行评审研究。确定审稿人的机构。
BMJ. 1994;309(6953):538-9.
6
Gift authorship: a poisoned chalice?馈赠作者身份：一杯毒酒？
BMJ. 1994 Dec 3;309(6967):1456-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6967.1456.
7
And now, evidence based editing.现在是基于证据的编辑。
BMJ. 1995 Sep 30;311(7009):826. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7009.826.
本文引用的文献
1
The scandal of poor medical research.糟糕的医学研究丑闻。
BMJ. 1994 Jan 29;308(6924):283-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283.
2
Peer review and medical journals: how to make a good thing better.同行评审与医学期刊：如何让好事变得更好。
Natl Med J India. 1994 May-Jun;7(3):103-5.
3
The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication.第二届生物医学出版同行评审国际大会。
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):91. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520020017003.
4
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.盲审对同行评审中研究论文接受情况的影响。
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):143-6.
5
Anonymity of reviewers.审稿人的匿名性。
Cardiovasc Res. 1994 Aug;28(8):1134-9; discussion 1140-5. doi: 10.1093/cvr/28.8.1134.
6
Journal peer review. The need for a research agenda.期刊同行评审。研究议程的必要性。
N Engl J Med. 1985 Mar 7;312(10):654-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198503073121023.
7
Investigating peer review.调查同行评审。
Ann Intern Med. 1988 Aug 1;109(3):181. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-109-3-181.
8
Problems with peer review and alternatives.同行评审的问题及替代方案。
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Mar 12;296(6624):774-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.296.6624.774.
9
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.盲法对同行评审质量的影响。一项随机试验。
JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1371-6.
Zotero 插件